A federal appeals court has just dealt a significant blow to President Donald Trump's attempt to reshape birthright citizenship through executive action. The decision, handed down by the Ninth Circuit, reinforces a lower court's ruling that labeled the day-one order unconstitutional.
According to USA TODAY, the Ninth Circuit's opinion, penned by Judge Ronald M. Gould, a Clinton appointee, dismissed the administration's defense as relying on shaky legal ground. The court stood firm, stating that denying citizenship to many born on U.S. soil simply won't hold under constitutional scrutiny.
This ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, challenging Trump's order from the moment it was issued. It's a clear pushback against what many see as executive overreach on a deeply rooted American principle.
The majority opinion didn't mince words, declaring, "The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional." Such a stance tears apart the idea that a president can unilaterally alter the 14th Amendment's intent with a single signature.
Judge Gould pointed out that the administration's argument leaned on a "network of inferences" detached from the legal understandings of 1868, when the amendment was ratified. This historical disconnect, he argued, renders their position indefensible.
It's hard to ignore the implication here: redefining who qualifies as American based on policy whims is a dangerous precedent. The court's reasoning suggests that some lines, once drawn by the Constitution, aren't meant to be erased by executive fiat.
Not everyone on the panel agreed, with Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, a Trump appointee, offering a partial dissent rooted in judicial restraint. He urged his colleagues to stick to the limits of "the judicial Power," citing a Supreme Court precedent that curbed judges from halting Trump policies through broad injunctions.
Bumatay's perspective hints at a broader frustration with courts overstepping into policy-making territory. His reference to Trump v. CASA, Inc. underscores a belief that judicial intervention should be narrowly tailored, not a blanket rejection of executive action.
Yet, this dissent misses the mark for those who see the executive order as a direct assault on constitutional bedrock. If the judiciary doesn't check such moves, who will?
State leaders who brought the lawsuit were quick to herald the ruling as a win for fundamental rights. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown stated, "The court agrees that the president cannot redefine what it means to be American with the stroke of a pen."
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield echoed this sentiment, saying, "We’re proud to stand with the other states in this fight and we’ll continue to defend the rights of every Oregonian." Both remarks frame the decision as a safeguard against arbitrary exclusion from citizenship.
These statements carry weight, but they also gloss over the messy reality of balancing state and federal powers. While their rhetoric paints a noble picture, the underlying tension of who gets to define "American" remains unresolved and ripe for further conflict.
The White House, unsurprisingly, isn't backing down, with spokesperson Abigail Jackson asserting on July 24, "We look forward to being vindicated on appeal." This signals that the administration views the fight as far from over, likely eyeing a Supreme Court showdown.
This persistence reflects a broader strategy to test the limits of executive authority, especially on hot-button issues like immigration and citizenship. Yet, banking on a higher court reversal risks further entrenching the perception of a government willing to sidestep constitutional norms for political points.
In the end, this ruling, alongside the earlier district court decision on July 10 by Judge Joseph Laplante barring enforcement, underscores a critical juncture for the nation. Birthright citizenship isn't just a legal concept; it's a cornerstone of identity that won't be easily reshaped, no matter how fierce the political winds blow.
